I was thinking about this the other day, and thought maybe I'd stir the coals here and see what everyone thinks..
One of the big drives and so-called advantages of the independent game community is it's ability to develop and market games without the risk of complacency... While the corporate-based development companies churn out me-too after me-too game, the indy community has long prided itself on it's strength of innovation and risk-free approach.
After perusing several independent game publishing sites, I'm beginning to think that's not entirely true. At least if you actually want to get your game published and make a buck or two off of it.
Understandably so, these publishers need to make money to survive. Risk doesn't just affect larger, commercial software, and target markets have to be identified to create a niche' that brings in revenue afterall.
My question is... has independent development become just as complacent if you intend to try to sell your game? In my observation, it seems to be the case.
I'm a fan of the match-3-of-the-same-shape-or-color formula as much as anyone else... but how many different variations of this can we churn out? How is this different than the ruts that commercial developers fall into (ooo look, another sandbox, run around and do whatever you want with an inner city theme)
Is this just because these puzzly type games are the only types of games presented to publishers? Or are these the only types of games that the publisher will entertain?
I've also noticed that indie publishers tend to be very "Nintendo-ish" in their choice of audience. You'll never see Pop-cap publish something "edgy". The one shooter that they publish is a very benign tank game. You'd never see anything like Birdie's "zombie blast" demo coming from them.. (unless of course, the object was to shoot 3 zombies of the same color and they pop humorously into confetti rather than a large puddle of blood).
One may argue that how a zombie explodes has little to do with game play. That may very well be correct. The creative (or psychotic.. take your pick) side of me isn't sure if I like the idea that censorship is necessary to be successful. In contrast, for instance, many of the most successful independent films are applauded for their edginess and shocking content. Are games exempt from this?
I know that there are some independent publishers who frequent the forums. It would be interesting to hear their insight, and opinion on this...
There are also a few developers here who've had their works published. Have you found yourself developing your game around your market rather than creating something that find's it's own niche? Is this selling out or working smart? Does writing for your audience discourage creativity? Understandably.. if income from a game is what you do to survive, it's always best to go the "safe" route rather than starve.
I just thought this might make a good discussion. The intent here is not to criticize anyone, but more of study and self reflection as to where published independent development is today, and if it really is as far removed from the commercial model it dares to call rigid.
One of the big drives and so-called advantages of the independent game community is it's ability to develop and market games without the risk of complacency... While the corporate-based development companies churn out me-too after me-too game, the indy community has long prided itself on it's strength of innovation and risk-free approach.
After perusing several independent game publishing sites, I'm beginning to think that's not entirely true. At least if you actually want to get your game published and make a buck or two off of it.
Understandably so, these publishers need to make money to survive. Risk doesn't just affect larger, commercial software, and target markets have to be identified to create a niche' that brings in revenue afterall.
My question is... has independent development become just as complacent if you intend to try to sell your game? In my observation, it seems to be the case.
I'm a fan of the match-3-of-the-same-shape-or-color formula as much as anyone else... but how many different variations of this can we churn out? How is this different than the ruts that commercial developers fall into (ooo look, another sandbox, run around and do whatever you want with an inner city theme)
Is this just because these puzzly type games are the only types of games presented to publishers? Or are these the only types of games that the publisher will entertain?
I've also noticed that indie publishers tend to be very "Nintendo-ish" in their choice of audience. You'll never see Pop-cap publish something "edgy". The one shooter that they publish is a very benign tank game. You'd never see anything like Birdie's "zombie blast" demo coming from them.. (unless of course, the object was to shoot 3 zombies of the same color and they pop humorously into confetti rather than a large puddle of blood).
One may argue that how a zombie explodes has little to do with game play. That may very well be correct. The creative (or psychotic.. take your pick) side of me isn't sure if I like the idea that censorship is necessary to be successful. In contrast, for instance, many of the most successful independent films are applauded for their edginess and shocking content. Are games exempt from this?
I know that there are some independent publishers who frequent the forums. It would be interesting to hear their insight, and opinion on this...
There are also a few developers here who've had their works published. Have you found yourself developing your game around your market rather than creating something that find's it's own niche? Is this selling out or working smart? Does writing for your audience discourage creativity? Understandably.. if income from a game is what you do to survive, it's always best to go the "safe" route rather than starve.
I just thought this might make a good discussion. The intent here is not to criticize anyone, but more of study and self reflection as to where published independent development is today, and if it really is as far removed from the commercial model it dares to call rigid.